The "you" was supposed to be "one" - so, no, not directed at you. I know you are a human being of reason and reasonably reject the proposition of miracles.

I see that we mostly agree and I apologise for misunderstanding you. In turn, I believe you misunderstood the usage of my analogy and now it is my turn to clarify...

I do agree that a game of billiards is not necessarily chaotic in that, A) the players have a goal, and, the more skilled they are, the less chaotic the game seems; and B) Newtonian theory can indeed predict what happen at the macroscopic level of reality.

But my analogy came with the purpose of focusing on the break-off point and the uncertainty of the observing players. At that point, the goal is simply to scatter the balls but they have no idea what will happen. They would perceive chaos at the first instance of the billiards "big bang." - And again, chaos and order are distinctions made by conscious beings like us.

As you know, I am a hard determinist, so I'm with you on the "no accidents" argument in a sense. We may even say that the emergence of Earth and its conscious life was predetermined, or destined, even, since the Big Bang - but this, however, just to make clear to everyone, does not mean pre-planned. Determinism also survives at the quantum level: other histories may live on other universes that have decohered from our own, but what has "collapsed" to define our observable reality is the result of probabilities that ranked high for this cosmic frequency. We are concerned with the top numbers on the dice which will affect the course of our game so to speak.

And using this casino analogy, in the long run of a game, we would indeed be able to predict the frequency of different types of outcomes. In the long run, meaning time and a series of observations are required for predictive power. However, the outcome of a single roll of the dice is completely unpredictable and uncertainty reigns supreme. Funy that! And this is how the qusntum works in a nutshell...

[ Post made via Android ]

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

OK, so we agree after all. There is no billiard player (Deity) and if a ball happens to fall in a pocket (and form life and existence) it wasn't necessarily the objective of the game of the universe. It may have just happened for some reason. (I'm still wondering if there is a tendency for them to 'fall in the pockets' or not). 'Why' is still unknown and we can only speculate and although it's hard to prove any theory wrong, it was never right either......

In all this, I forgot to reply to Peter:

Peter wrote:

It happened in nature once with us

And if we these become self aware they could be organic machines (humans)

So what are we ?

I'm starting to feel that I myself am a biological machine. Most of me is regulated beyond my conscious control. Heart rate, digestion, immune system and the growth of my hair and nails to name a few. I sometimes feel my conscious sense of 'self' is just here for the ride and if I was purely subconscious I would survive as a "human-robot", just fine. Why is the concept of 'self' and emotions needed?

I think it was evolution and it helped us advance in a social group. (That's a short answer and would take a whole essay to explain why "I think I know that"). (Can't be wrong if I say, "I think I know!" )

Again, to see the point in my analogies, when you roll the dice for the first time, don't think that you are some scientific genius who plays and measures at the same time. Think that Newtonian laws didn't even exist yet and it is all quantum and uncertain. Think from the perspective of the layman player who doesn't even bother with measurement. Do not view the dice in my analogy as a classical object, more like a wave of probabilities. As time passes and space expands, a set of outcomes manifest for this universe, the rest, if the many-worlds interpretation is true, live in other universes, or to define them, and thus become irrelevant.

[ Post made via Android ]

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

Maybe the tendency is true for this universe. Perhaps this cosmic table has six "life-holes." Other may have two and thus their conditions make it less likely for conscious life to emerge. Other have none and thus would never evolve the appropriate chemistry for any sort of life. Others may have holes all round and teem with life! I think the multiverse scenario is very likely and our big bang was only the beginning of this universe, not necessarily the beginning of everything. I think, the beginning of everything happened so long ago that all traces of it are long gone. It predates our universe, I presume, and, because the "crime scene" is long gone, it may forever remain a mystery.

[ Post made via Android ]

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

I applaud you on this topic, Hagart, this is probably the deepest discussion anyone's ever had in the off-topic section.

[ Post made via Android ]

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

I saw Taleb in the other side of the table in debates with Sam Harris and Dawkins, so, your probably right and he is a guy like Deepak Chopra with a lot of science mixed with mystic mambo jambo stuff I really don't know deeply any of Deepak’s and Taleb’s work, so, be aware and don't give too much credit to my supposition.

I didn't read all the discussion about the black swans and all because it was dense and didn't provoke a great interest on me. I'm just saying this to explain that probably I took your statement out of context and miss interpreted your words. You said that there always uncertainty but your probably were trying to say that in science we have lot off variables and we are not capable, with our level of knowledge at the moment, to know certain things in empirical sciences with certainty. But I disagree about what you said if we take your sentence literally. I think that we can know truths about reality, but are not very substantial, are just a tiny set of knowledge (analytic/mathematical knowledge, our existence, etc).I would like to talk about this, but I’ll create a new topic

Thinker wrote:Note that if you say that, you are stating a paradox because you mean that your statement ('there's nothing we can know to be 100% sure'') is also true.

This is a conundrum. Summerlander says it's possible, but we would have to know everything. What if we knew where every atom in the universe was, its mass, trajectory, and speed? If we did, everything would be predictable from weather (and the energy it produces), to the stock market, to even human behavior since brains are also composed of atoms and consciousness is sometimes compared to a lightening storm.

But that's all impossible. There are not enough atoms in the brain or a super computer to know since it too is composed of atoms. It would also have to know it's own atoms as it calculates it all which will be an impossible feedback loop. As soon as a computer tries to calculate where an atom is inside it's own circuitry many atoms move and it would need to recalculate again!

The only thing I can know with 100% accuracy is that I think I know.

It’s not a conundrum, it’s really a paradox. Is the same as saying: ‘’ It’s true that nothing is true’’ like the famous Socrate’s quote ‘’I only know that I know nothing’’I think that in empirical sciences there always a deegree of uncertainty, depending on the words you use making scientific arguments

You don't have a supercomputer that has all the variables, nevertheless, many people say that the laws of newton are true